Yes afraid Apple need to make some more computers, the range currently is woeful. I understand they have been busy with the Iphone, blah, blah, blah lol, but companies would not be offering cheaper alternatives if there were not huge gaping holes all over the range. Personally I still think the Mac Pro desktop case is pretty cool, just fill it with a lower specced processor and and a smaller hard drive and leave it as it is, but with the added attraction of being cheaper and easy to upgrade. Would anyone be offended by this, a lower entry point price wise for mac, but with ready built components ? Or do a half size case with two hard drive caddies but keep the form factor and upgradeability, it's hardly rocket science is it, isn't this what PC manufacturers have been doing for years ?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Psystar over OpenComputer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sure, it's way simple.
Some people want a mini tower.
Some people want an iMac.
The people who want a mini tower buy it.
The people who want an iMac buy it.
Ta-da! Does it have to be any more complicated than that?
I don't get the notion that adding another model would hurt apple - doesn't more consumer choice generally help sales and not hurt it?
For the same arguments that everyone is using about OS X, and copyright infringement............ why don't I see the same illustrations about OS X on the iPhone that all the different ones (DEV group) are modifying?
Why do you suppose that Apple hasn't gone after them?
You've seen the YouTube video on the Chinese Copy that they are selling for $90, and that's hardware AND software.
Why do you suppose that Apple hasn't gone after them?
You've seen the YouTube video on the Chinese Copy that they are selling for $90, and that's hardware AND software.
It's not like anyone is preventing you (as an individual) from doing what Psystar (as a company) did. Would it be legal? No. But you can still do it and, in fact, there are plenty of resources out there to help you. Macs are expensive. They are very nice computers that, generally speaking, don't give their users too much hassle. I'm getting a PhD in Computer Science. I've built my own Linux kernel and worked at Intel hacking the Linux kernel. But I own and love my Mac because I got sick of recompiling my kernel and dicking around with Linux to get stuff to work. I do have the ability to go the "make my own clone" route but I don't because 1) it takes time, 2) it's possible it might not run as well, and 3) I want to give Apple some $ for taking care of this stuff for me. Do I wish it were cheaper? Hell yeah! But I still buy them because even for the slightly exaggerated prices, I believe I won't get the same experience from a non-Mac.
First, I am one of those who wants a mini-tower.
However, cuurently Apple makes money by selling non-upgradeable hardware as users have to go back to the "well" in order to get new machines rather than just buy faster parts. Also, by selling displays Apple makes more money on each sale as well..
With that said, I do believe there is a market given the sheer number of people who endlessly complain about this fact (despite the Apple defenders).
Don't people listen?
There is no "monopoly" on your own product. Monopolies only apply to segments of markets. Microsoft has been found by courts a couple of times to hold a monopoly in the "Computer Operating System" market. Apple only holds a 7% share of the "Computer Operating System" market thus no monopoly.
Umm, Apple sells a mid-range tower and an iMac. Those who are happy with the integrated monitor buy an iMac, and those who want more flexibility buy the mid-range tower.
Maybe my lack of an MBA makes me naive, but it seems simple to me. The question is just whether there is enough demand for a mid-range tower or not.
Really though, Apple doesn't even have to change their product line-up. If they just upgraded the Mac Mini to have the option of similar graphics cards and CPUs as the iMacs, they'd probably satisfy most people. A tower configuration allows more options for internal drives, but that doesn't seem as important to me since you can always use external drives. You can't do that with the graphics card or CPUs though.
If people like me were using computers in the 70's, we might have had a Linux-analog 20+ years sooner.
We gotta get Judge Judy:
Jobs: They violated the EULA.
JJ:BALONEY!1one
Psystar guy: We didn't do anything wrong!
JJ: *various gavel banging*
Jobs: They violated the EULA.
JJ:BALONEY!1one
Psystar guy: We didn't do anything wrong!
JJ: *various gavel banging*
They are the only ones who can sell their OS, but it's incorrect to use the term "monopoly" to describe it, at least using the term in its legal sense. And sorry to be picky, but in a discussion about lawsuits and the potential of antitrust, we absolutely SHOULD use the term in its legal sense. Monopolies apply to a market, not an individual product.
If you were to define a company as having a monopoly on a product they sell, then EVERY product from EVERY company would be a monopoly, which would make the word meaningless nonsense.
While apple makes money from that, the same policy loses them any customers who don't want to be forced into buying things they don't want. It is limiting their market share by not offering an appealing model to a group of potential customers.
What is their midrange tower? I only see the mini and the Mac Pro, an expensive, high end tower.
PSYSTAR is good for competition
Don't be too quick to say "good riddence evil imposter" to psystar. Compainies like these are GOOD for the consumer. There is an annoying fanboy attitude that seems to equate apple marketplace dominance with personal happiness, but the truth is the exact opposite. COnsumer happiness comes from competition in the marketplace. You should WANT is to have apple be the best company by being forced to innovate, not squash competition. Remember you always have the choice of buying an apple product over a non-apple imitation.
The Apple EULA is a shady legal proposition. Imgine Toyota or Chevy selling you a car and telling you that you can only use Exxon gas, or drive on the Toyota highway. It's NONSENSE PEOPLE!!! Granted the downside is a bloated Wintel situation where thousands of incompatibility issues reign from software to hardware to 3rd party add-ons, but if you have apple making an OS, and 3rd party hardware makers supporting their hardware with that OS, it can only making apple LOWER THEIR PRICES, and INNOVATE WITH BETTER, NEWER products.
Go Psystar!!!
Don't be too quick to say "good riddence evil imposter" to psystar. Compainies like these are GOOD for the consumer. There is an annoying fanboy attitude that seems to equate apple marketplace dominance with personal happiness, but the truth is the exact opposite. COnsumer happiness comes from competition in the marketplace. You should WANT is to have apple be the best company by being forced to innovate, not squash competition. Remember you always have the choice of buying an apple product over a non-apple imitation.
The Apple EULA is a shady legal proposition. Imgine Toyota or Chevy selling you a car and telling you that you can only use Exxon gas, or drive on the Toyota highway. It's NONSENSE PEOPLE!!! Granted the downside is a bloated Wintel situation where thousands of incompatibility issues reign from software to hardware to 3rd party add-ons, but if you have apple making an OS, and 3rd party hardware makers supporting their hardware with that OS, it can only making apple LOWER THEIR PRICES, and INNOVATE WITH BETTER, NEWER products.
Go Psystar!!!
Actually, it's a great analogy, and you can't disprove it. This is the first point you are wrong on.
Psystar wasn't selling Macs. They were selling Intel computers that happen to run a modified version of OSX. This is the second point you're wrong about.
I think was directed at someone else. I never said Apple had a monopoly.
Except that I'm right.
Except in the two parts I pointed out above.
But I'm legally allowed to write software for OSX, right? I can make drivers for hardware, I can make software that enhances the OS, I can make software that improves performance, I can write software that adds all sorts of pieces of usability and compatability to the OSX experience, correct?
So why can't I sell you a copy of Leopard, a copy of my software, and a computer running Leopard along with my software preinstalled?
That would be point #3 where you're wrong.
Umm, Apple sells a mid-range tower and an iMac. Those who are happy with the integrated monitor buy an iMac, and those who want more flexibility buy the mid-range tower.
Maybe my lack of an MBA makes me naive, but it seems simple to me. The question is just whether there is enough demand for a mid-range tower or not.
Really though, Apple doesn't even have to change their product line-up. If they just upgraded the Mac Mini to have the option of similar graphics cards and CPUs as the iMacs, they'd probably satisfy most people. A tower configuration allows more options for internal drives, but that doesn't seem as important to me since you can always use external drives. You can't do that with the graphics card or CPUs though.
You aren't naive. You're arguing with the most short-sighted, half-witted and clueless computer user on the interwebs.... The Apple fanboi. As I've already said, had the fanbois been around since the 1970s the entire spirit of innovation, hacking and computers would have been killed off before Apple could have done their 1984 advertisement.
People would have been too upset with Bill Joy for writing his own version of Unix at Berkeley... all the current Apple fanbois would be too busy screaming and crying about AT&T's right to charge as much as they wanted for System V.
You are actually not right here. The main factor in the sales of software (and books, music, videos etc. ) is copyright law. Apple could sell lets say Leopard with no EULA (End User License Agreement) at all and rely only on copyright law. In the case of computer software, copyright law allows you to make the copies of the software that are needed to use it (that is, installing it on a computer), and to make "incidental" copies (for example, copying the software into RAM to execute it, copying icons onto the screen so you can see them, copies that are made when you partition your hard drive and so on). The only difference is that without EULA you would be absolutely free on _which_ computer to install MacOS X, as long as you install it only on one computer. EULAs are there to allow the user to do either more or less than plain copyright law allows.
That said, copyright law covers copying and distribution. Two different things. What Psystar is doing is distribution, and Apple has the absolute right to control distribution of their software. Psystars arguments about EULAs not being enforceable and so on are completely missing the point: You and I are end users, Psystar is not. EULAs don't apply to them. Instead, they need permission from Apple to _distribute_ MacOS X (and they are unlikely to get it). If Apple sold Leopard without a EULA, they _you_ as an end user would be free to buy a Psystar computer (or a Dell computer), a copy of Leopard, and install Leopard on it. Psystar would _still_ not be allowed to sell machines with Leopard pre-installed, because that is distribution and needs permission from the copyright holder.
But all these arguments are complex and might be expensive to pursue in court, so Apple just waited until Psystar didn't watch out and committed a plain straightforward copyright infringement. They downloaded an OS upgrade (perfectly legal), modified it (not allowed without permission of the copyright holder) and copied and distributed it (not allowed without permission of the copyright holder). Now Apple can go to a court and say: This is what they did, here is the law saying they are not allowed to do it, here is where the law states what damages have to be paid. A simple, straightforward case with very little cost for Apple.
Sorry, I worded that unclearly. Apple does not currently have a mid-range tower. I was just making a proposal for the business plan for Apple if they were to add a midrange tower to their lineup, in response to someone who seemed to be suggesting that adding a midrange tower to their lineup wouldn't make business sense because it would conflict with the iMac.
The iMac is a home appliance. It offers lower mid range capability with an aesthetically appealing form factor with a small foot print. It offers exactly what a family needs, but little more. Try to go beyond that and trust me, you hit a brick wall fast. A tower is a tool designed with the adaptability to do many tasks well.
Shoulda known an oversimplified answer would come from my question. It's not as black and white as you make it. In fact it further confuses people if an AIO has nearly the same specs as a mid-range tower. A more concrete answer please?? Or anyone else for that matter??
Actually, a monopoly occurs when a single manufacturer provides a product (i.e., a good or service) for which there are no close substitutes. It could certainly be argued that because of the existence of Windows operating systems, Linux, Ubuntu, etc - that Apple does not have a monopoly on their operating system, because there are so many "close" substitutes. The issue of "closeness" between Apple's OS and other OS's has not been litigated to my knowledge.
I continue to be amazed that people DON'T WANT the Apple OS to be available for EVERY computer system in the world. Why WOULDN'T you want to walk into your local Best Buy and have the option of installing OS X on the computer INSTEAD of Vista or Linus or whatever?
Maybe someday somebody will be able to offer some logical rational for this.
Off-topic: I'm actually looking at those in the Apple online store. The $2000 ones are dual-core proc's, but since they are Xeon proc's they're still amazing.
On-topic: I hope good things will come from this. Apple will probably ease up on the Mac OSX on PC thing, probably allowing people to do it for personal/business use only and not sell PC's with Mac OSX installed on them.
It makes sense in a way, since Apple brought Boot Camp to allow window users to use Mac hardware I can see the reverse happening.